'Andrew Tate phenomena' surges in schools - with boys refusing to talk to female teacher
'Andrew Tate phenomena' surges in schools - with boys refusing to talk to female teacher
Online influencers such as Andrew Tate are fuelling an increase in sexism in the classroom, says a new survey from education union the NASUWT. It comes after the Netflix series Adolescence thrust concerns around incel culture into the spotlight.
Summary
Social media influencers are fuelling a rise in misogyny and sexism in the UK's classrooms, according to teachers.
More than 5,800 teachers were polled... and nearly three in five (59%) said they believe social media use has contributed to a deterioration in pupils' behaviour.
One teacher said she'd had 10-year-old boys "refuse to speak to [her]...because [she is] a woman". Another said "the Andrew Tate phenomena had a huge impact on how [pupils] interacted with females and males they did not see as 'masculine'".
"There is an urgent need for concerted action... to safeguard all children and young people from the dangerous influence of far-right populists and extremists."
You're viewing a single thread.
In my opinion the huge difference between this generation and all previous ones is that content is no longer vetted by anyone. It used to be that to put something in front of kids it had to approved by some sane adult. If a TV station marketed to children something that most parents would not approve they would face protests or maybe even legal action. On social media any asshole can post literally anything and millions of kids will consume it without any supervision.
And, part of the reason for that is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
If a TV station or radio station has a call-in show and the caller swears, it's the station that gets fined. If the station runs a late night informercial where someone is defamed, the station is liable. But, do it online and you're fine. The YouTube algorithm can pick out the juiciest, most controversial, most slanderous content and shove it into everyone's recommendations and only the person who posted that content is responsible.
Section 230 makes sense in some situations. If you're running a bulletin board without any kind of algorithm promoting posts, then it makes sense that you shouldn't be held accountable for what someone says in that bulletin board. But, YouTube, Twitch, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. have all taken it too far. They don't personally create the content, but they have algorithms that analyze the content and decide who to show it to. They get the protections of a bulletin board, while curating the content to make it even more engaging than a segment on Newsmax or MSNBC.
That's the whole point of screaming about "liberal" or "leftist" media for all this time even when most media outlets are owned by for profit orgs. They usually have to comply with laws. On social media you've been able to lie as much as you want without consequence or being called out. Corporations mostly use this to market to children and get them addicted to gambling.
Most media is liberal though. Liberalism is a (right-wing) hegemonic ideology. CNN, Fox, NYTimes, NYPost, NPR... All liberal.
Not so much for leftism though. It's "strange" how the right-wing conflates the two.
I agree but it's beside the point (the liberal party in my country is openly supporting the nazi party). For profit media can per definition not be objective but at least it has to comply with the laws of the country it operates in. The internet bypasses all this legislation and pretty much every country was slow to catch up.
What really grinds my gears is when my fellow countrymen believe propaganda about our state sponsored media. Which cannot be controlled by our government because it's been proxied off behind several foundations running it. The only thing our government can do (and then only with support from the opposition) is reduce or increase money going into it. It's pretty much the only source of reporting in my language without sponsors dictating content.
You know you're actually right on the money, and it's a little startling that it never occurred to me before. Shit.
It used to be that to put something in front of kids it had to approved by some sane adult.
I love how you got a ton of upvotes by vaguely gesturing at the past.
When was this time you speak of?
What has changed is the social fabric of society has been ripped up.
Back when media for kids consisted mainly of broadcast TV shows and books. It's not some mythical past; it's my childhood.
..and that centralized system of culture disemination played a major hand in creating the crisises we are in now.